reddit refugee

here to stay

  • 1 Post
  • 26 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle



  • You’d think if it was all basic biology we would just have a unique gender for every one wouldn’t you?

    Nothing in biology is exactly identical between individuums. A common eye color is brown, although there are as many shades of brown as there are people.

    It is just practical and how language, or even perception works, that we tend to categorize similarities, and strongly favor common occurrances over outliers.

    the doctor is describing your phenotypic sex based on observable characteristics.

    Your doctor is assigning you a gender.

    Maybe you two aren’t even disagreeing?

    I’d say the doctor tries to assign the new born into male or female according to biological sex, and gender is inferred from that.

    He calls you either a boy or a girl based on your genital configuration

    Yes, that’s what I mean. A two-step process. First, biological expression is assessed. Next, based on #1, social gender is inferred.


  • Basically, do you identify as your birth gender (not sex, gender and sex are different)?

    The additional explanation actually confused me. Let’s compare the two sentences:

    • A) Basically, do you identify as your birth gender?

    • B) Basically, do you identify as your birth sex?

    I assume biological sex can be identified by looking at your body as a new born baby, and gender is usually inferred accordingly. So I would assume new borns are being assigned a gender which mathes their biology, although they probably don’t have any opinions themselves on the topic.

    Anyways, what’s the difference between A and B? I feel you felt it was important to point it out, and I just can’t see any.







  • The article is not about single persons who might be trolls or whatever to qualify as a “bad guy”. But about megacorporations like Meta.

    Yes, sorry for being unclear. I meant the bad ‘guy’ Meta. Maybe continuing with ‘entity’ would have been better:

    we can be sure some entities will join

    ensure only good entities enter


    The best way to deal with them is-in my opinion-to not cooperate and defederate them as soon as they start to enter.

    I tend to agree. Still quite new to the topic.


  • I’m worried this will not be enough in the long run.

    Imagine Meta provides more original content, a higher user base, more engagement, more activity. That alone would make it interesting for many other users, further increasing their relative attractivity.

    Additionally, they could invest in the codebase, and implement some of the community’s dream features, some nice mod tools, search engine discoverability and whatnot. On a fork which lives on their instances, of course. Services which work if you federate with them.

    They have the resources to rase the stakes higher and higher. The incentives are objective, real, advantages for users, communitites, mods and admins. Isn’t it only a question of time / stake height until significant parts of the fediverse choose to cooperate for various reasons?


  • We should be honest and ensure people join the Fediverse because they share some of the values behind it.

    How could that be done? Anyone with the resources can host an instance, and there are plenty of instances with a low entry bar.

    If the fediverse grows enough, we can be sure some entities will join not because they share our values, but because they see our value.

    I don’t see how we could prevent that or ensure only good guys enter. The fediverse is open by design.


  • the powers that be must never be allowed to join the fediverse

    How are they not allowed? How is it checked, how prevented?

    As I see it, they can freely use the code, freely set up instances, freely create user accounts on their own or other instances, with ‘independent’ users, employees or bots.

    The only thing stopping them is the current fediverse’s insignificance. We’re just not tasty enough, yet. But if we become, how could we disallow them from joining?



  • I disagree on moderation, I don’t think any #Fediverse admin would trust #Meta enough to use their software for moderation.

    I found the example interesting in principle. We can think of varieties besides moderation. What other features are highly requested and sought after?

    What about an easy way to find, join, and engage with even niche communities? Comm lookup and joining is wonky, especially when coming from small instances. Another related feature is user-side grouping of similar comms into one multi-community. Or being able to easily move between instances, relocate your account. Better indexing for web searches.

    The list of possible features, ranging from QoL to Enablers, is endless. Big companies with coding experience can easily dominate the scene, and make it hard to not join them or use their service. Their mere presence could spell dependence.

    Like I heard we’re using lemmy 0.18 now. Would you voluntarily still use an older version, like 0.9, when you can just as well use 0.18?


  • If they have any ability to post to the Fediverse or to track things they’ll do it all over again.

    They have that ability, and always will have. They can create as many accounts as they like on as many instances as they like, or run as many instances as they like themselves, use incentivized individuals, or employees, or bots, or any combination of all of the above. No one can stop them, maybe even no one can spot them.

    The only thing which is holding them back right now is lemmy/kbin still being too insignificant. If the network continues to grow, more and more big corps will see it as a market and an opportunity, and they will have plenty of ways to interact with it.


  • if Google or Meta wants to join they should to us not us to them so if they break federation we should not care and continue implement our stuff

    As I understood the article, the danger is that large actors like these are too important too ignore. Too many users, too much content to neglect. So while in theory you are obviously right, in reality there will be a temptation to cater to their needs, because it seems so worthwhile.



  • relatively homogenous

    Some may be surprised by the cultural diversity this rather small country packs:

    It has four main linguistic and cultural regions: German, French, Italian and Romansh. Although most Swiss are German-speaking, national identity is fairly cohesive, being rooted in a common historical background, shared values such as federalism and direct democracy,[15][page needed] and Alpine symbolism.[16][17] Swiss identity transcends language, ethnicity, and religion, leading to Switzerland being described as a Willensnation (“nation of volition”) rather than a nation state.[18]

    Due to its linguistic diversity, Switzerland is known by multiple native names: Schweiz [ˈʃvaɪts] (German);[f][g] Suisse [sɥis(ə)] (French); Svizzera [ˈzvittsera] (Italian); and Svizra [ˈʒviːtsrɐ, ˈʒviːtsʁɐ] (Romansh).[h] On coins and stamps, the Latin name, Confoederatio Helvetica — frequently shortened to “Helvetia” — is used instead of the spoken languages.

    I also think the local traditions differentiating down to single villages are more important and alive than in other countries.

    But yes, “national identity is fairly cohesive”, maybe you meant that.